Obama meets Karzai, promises steadfast Afghan aid
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 4 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
46 Comments
Login to comment
0
Betzee
Obama's position is not very different from McCain's on Afghanistan who has also called for more troops. Neither has addressed how more troops are going to change the situation, however.
This year's opium crop, harvested in April, has exceeded last years which exceeded that of the year before, etc. The elected government is riddled with corruption and there's very little to show for all the foreign aid which has been pumped in.
0
some14some
Obama has made it very clear that the US will not hesitate to target AQ/Taliban hideouts in Pakistan. Whereas McCain will continue Bush's policies and treat Pakistan as close 'ally'. That's the difference.
0
Betzee
I found the reaction of the Right to Obama's proclamation strange, aren't they like, "bomb, bomb, bomb"? Islamabad of course supported the Taliban, before Pakistan became an ally of the US on the war on terror. What exactly we've gotten from that alliance is unclear.
0
skipthesong
promises steadfast Afghan aid" In usual fashion, he is becoming a typical politician - promise, promise, promises.
But, I do agree with Betzee's post.
0
Sarge
"Obama has also chided Karzai and his government, saying it had "not gotten out of the bunker"
Obama wouldn't know what a bunker was if he fell into one.
0
Everton2
Sarge- it is only a figure of speech, and you have got get over this obsession with military service and its qualification to be commander and chief. Some of America's greatest presidents have never been near a bunker.
0
Zen_Builder
This is a pure academic question.
What is the ratio of "peaceful" presidents(ie never served) that didn't take the country to war vs Presidents that did it and served(Not counting actual war experience here due to GWB and possible others). Forgive me for that.
0
undecidedbout08
Senator Obama was telling reporters just last year that one reason we needed to get out of Iraq was so it would free up Arabic translators who could be utilized in Afghanistan - where Arabic is not spoken.He cuts a nice figure for the media and all,but does he have a sound grasp of geopolitical fundamentals? That said,the senator and nominee now has something like 300 advisors on foreign policy. Maybe they think he is amendable to any number of approaches,or maybe they think he is in way over his head. This tour would be much more compelling if we knew who the Democrat VP was.
0
Sarge
Where does Obama get off chiding Karzai for not having "gotten out of the bunker"? Karzai is a brave man who has risked his life doing the job he's doing. He's done WAY more for his country than Obama has ever done for his country.
And aside from having no military experience, which, agreed, Everton, is not a prerequisite for being president, Obama's resume is thin indeed. He may well be the least qualified president in history if his charisma actually gets him past McCain, who, I admit, has little in the way of charisma.
0
Betzee
In fact U.S. intelligence agencies, along with the military, have sent speakers of Arabic, Farsi, and Pashto to Afghanistan, although only Pashto is an indigenous language. Arabic comes in handy when dealing with foreign fighters while Farsi, the native tongue of Iranians, is very similiar to Dari, the other major language spoken in Afghanistan besides Pashto.
Where we wasted our Arabic linguists was in the fruitless search for Saddam's WMD. They would have been much more useful working to stave off the Sunni insurgency.
0
Sarge
"promises steadfast Afghan aid"
Is he going to promise steadfast Iraq aid too?
0
SezWho2
Sarge,
Karzai certainly has put his life on the line for his country, but it's not like a black man with a Muslim father hasn't painted a giant bullseye on himself and done so because he believes himself to be doing something for his country. Obama has done as much for his country as Bush, McCain and a whole host of others who have no more right to criticize or praise Karzai than does he.
The widespread assessment of Afghanistan is that the "central government" holds primarily in Kabul, and even that with the help of considerable international support. Kabul would be Karzai's bunker and Afghanistan is not going to realize even modest stability until Karzai can begin to consolidate government across the country as a whole.
It would be sad indeed if one were required to render "greater or equal service" before one were allowed to criticize. However, that would put paid to a legion of bloggers who are all too ready to criticize Obama for not visiting Iraq since 2006 when they themselves have never visited at all.
0
Betzee
Maybe you missed it, Sarge. McCain recently observed: "he's not the strong leader we hoped for." Afghanistan, of course, is a tribal nation which, over the course of its history, has had governments which controlled little beyond Kabul.
0
undecidedbout08
An Obama victory could be good for America.And in view of historical trends it seems very likely, it would be very odd if the Democrats managed to lose this election,which is why I find the religious overtones and the gushy, messiah-making all the more worrisome. What is this?
It seems to me - and I hope I'm wrong - that this assessment of Obama includes the judgement that America is (1) racist (2) anti-Islamic and (3) violently so,and that Obama's campaign is in itself an act of superhuman courage and nobility,equal to John McCain's ordeal as a POW in Vietnam.
If you ask me,Barack Obama's rise speaks of the very best about America,both parties should be proud.
But his "service" to his country (which needn't be the sole determiner of a candidate's worthiness to be president) is not something I'd contrast with his opponent's or even with that of the current WH occupant.
0
Betzee
More so than GWB's? I think a better indication of leadership abilities is the extent to which a person has taken advantage of the opportunities which came his or her way as well as their success in creating opportunities for themselves.
As someone recently observed: “We Americans are one lucky bunch." But, let’s face the truth. While the Declaration of Independence assures us that ‘all men are created equal,’ we’d best face the fact that we may be created equal but we are born into a society where inequality of family, of education and, yes, even opportunity begins as soon as we are born.”
By this standard, Barack Obama holds up rather well, at least in comparison to GWB.
0
SezWho2
undecidedbout08,
In my opinion the current WH occupant has rendered negative service to his country. McCain has served his country in the old-fashioned sense where service means military service first and foremost. But in the sense of who has accomplished more for their countries, both Obama and Hillary are--in my estimation--winners over Bush and McCain. Obama and Hillary pushed the envelope. The others were just business as usual.
0
undecidedbout08
It's a shame this article includes no reaction from ordinary Afghanis.They have witnessed the liberation of their country by an American army comprised of all races and now they host a visitor who is the son of an African man invited to study in America, and who looks to set to win the position of the most powerful man in the world.
0
Betzee
The fact that NATO armed forces includes a contingent from Turkey, a founding NATO member which is also a Muslim country, has done a lot to allay Afghani concerns about liberation being a pretext for a Christian crusade.
0
SezWho2
I'll have to take a pass on McCain's military leadership experience and Bush's accountability as governor. I'll give you, however, that McCain was in the military and Bush was a governor. Their records were nothing to rave about.
The Afghanis have done no such thing as witnessing the liberation of their country. That's what all the fighting is still about and that's why the country is still not united and still at lethal 6s and 7s.
Moderator: All readers, please stay on topic. The subject is Obama's visit to Afghanistan.
0
Betzee
Wasn't it Northern Alliance troops who did the liberating back in 2001?
0
adaydream
I can't wait for Barack Obama to get elected. We can only go up as a nation after the last 7.5 years.
It'll be good to have a democratic president who isn't looking to start a new war. There is enough crap that has to be cleaned up after george bush's presidency.
We have to get the troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan so we can finish up what george bush justifiably started, but chose to take the war to Iraq. Damn stupid mistake. < :-)
0
undecidedbout08
Millions have returned since 2001.Numbers are down from the 5,000 per day returning in 2004,but any way you look at it life is better because America intervened there.
0
undecidedbout08
You have got to hand it to Barack Obama. He definitely thinks big. Here he is on the July 20 episode of "Face the Nation", explaining this trip.
0
adaydream
What's driving the republicans mad is that he will meet those political leaders and he'll have good meetings.
Barack set his sights and it set off such a response that the media mobbed the Obama machine to go along. That's what really eats up the repuiblicans. All this free publicity that the media will lavish him and then if his trip seems succesful.....Oh gawd...Caty bar the door. < :-)
0
undecidedbout08
A Christian crusade!???
The last Crusade ended almost a thousand years ago. You know, the last time I checked, even pro-Muslim and "post-modernist" interpretations (they read much the same - what a coincidence!) were pretty much agreed that the chief objective in traveling the vast expanses the Crusaders did was the attempt to take back from Muslim conquerors what literal interpreters of the Bible regarded as "The Holy Land".
I think we can safely say modern day Christians and Afghanis would never include Afghanistan in that category. I mean, come on, do you think Afghanis believe that the Soviet invasion was some kind of a crusade?
I'm rather suspicious of anyone who'd try and wedge a herring as red and clumsy as that one into a discussion about modern-day Afghanistan.
You may as well declare that "Obama is a Muslim", so this will also allay the fears that Afghanis may have.
Personally, if I were an Afghani who was given to an understandable suspicion of the designs other nations have for my country I'd be distressed by the troubling discrepancies in the conduct of many Arab and Muslim nations. The obscene profits certain of my fellow Muslims are making these days (not least of all off of citizens in the NATO countries) contrasts starkly with the lack of any largesse they show to innocent Muslim victims of terror at the hands of foreign invaders again trying to make sovereign Afghanistan into a theocratic state, doesn't it?
0
Sarge
Betzee ( 12:01 ) "By this standard Barack Obama holds up rather well, at least in comparison to GWB"
How so? No, wait, this is off topic. Never mind.
Well, I just hope that president-to-be Obama learns something from this trip.
0
Madverts
Wow, sarge - you're changing your Prediction?
This could be bad for Senator Obama ;)
0
Statistician
The guy is having a good trip
0
Sarge
Madverts - That's the whole idea!
0
SezWho2
undecidedabout08,
It is not true that any way you look at it life in Afghanistan is better today because America intervened. The security situation in Afghanistan has worsened since February of 2008 and that is one of the reasons for Obama's comments about Karzai. But even as of February 2008, the way that the International Committee of the Red Cross looked at it was that the refugee situation was worsening:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/13/afghanistan
The issue at hand, however, was whether or not Obama is qualified to make the types of comments about Karzai that he has. My contention has been that he is just as qualified as anyone else. Experience as the governor of Texas or experience as a POW in Vietnam no more qualify Bush or McCain to their opinions than Obama's history qualifies him.
Ultimately qualification does not depend on experience alone. It also depends upon understanding and ability. LeBron James was not qualified to play in the NBA because of his basketball experience. He was qualified because he was that good.
0
SezWho2
I don't think there is much objection to referring to the war in Afghanistan as a Crusade. Bush referred to it as such, he is on record as believing himself to be doing God's work and the war was code-named Infinite Justice until observant Muslims raised the objection that only Allah could dispense that.
It is true that the last Christian Crusade ended 1000 years ago. But that was really before Protestants got their foot in the door. Protestantism brought us religious egalitarianism where every man can interpret God's word. It's pretty clear what Bush's interpretation has been. That has never been lost upon many of the more savvy among the traditional tribal Afghani Muslims.
So, if there is any wedging going on, it is the attempt to impugn the validity of Betzee's comment by denying the possibility that any rational person could possibly look at what we have done as being a Crusade. And that is to say nothing about irrational people that might be looking upon US actions from a less well-informed Afghani viewpoint.
0
Betzee
Millions? Try about one million. Most of them have been kicked out of the country where they sought refuge from the excesses of the Taligan regime, Iran. Karzai has pleaded with his counterparts in Tehran to let them stay, which most would like to do, because there are no jobs for them at home. Others are farming their land and they won't even have a way to feed themselves.
0
Betzee
The point about the crusade is hardly controversial, except maybe to the uninformed:
With its experience as the former ISAF lead nation in Afghanistan, Turkey has significant expertise to bring to the table. Turkey’s numbers and capabilities would allow existing NATO forces in Kabul to expand into surrounding regions and would alleviate the pressure on American troops currently on the ground. And as NATO’s only majority Muslim member, Turkey’s foray into another high-profile tour in Afghanistan would demonstrate the campaign against terrorism is not a war against Muslims.
https://www.kintera.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=13221
0
Betzee
The Iranians have long complained about the injustice of the situation; they sheltered over one million Afghanis who fled Taliban rule (though they received no support from the UNHCR or any other refugee assistance organization). Pakistan, by contrast, supported the Taliban regime. Yet Pakistan ends up an ally in the war on terror while Iran is branded a member of the "axis of evil."
0
sailwind
Guess Betzee and Sezwho aren't real happy about Obama wanting to throw more American troops into Afghanistan.
0
Betzee
That's what both McCain and Obama want to do. The question is, what good is it going to do at this point? The government is mired in corruption and the economy dominated by the opium trade. I don't see how more troops will change either dynamic. It will, however, prompt Tehran to deport more Afghani refugees which will intensify the existing problems.
0
Betzee
Despite the claims by some British officers that the Taliban is being tactically routed, no one seems to have told the Islamist insurgents. Opium production in the areas under their control - and that of other warlords - has reached new records this year. Corruption and criminality, linked often to the very heart of government, is endemic. Despite $15bn in aid that has been disbursed, Afghanistan remains mired in pervasive poverty with unemployment standing at more than 40 per cent. The country's position as one of the world's poorest has barely shifted since 2001.
Confronted with these multiple failures, the temptation, voiced yesterday by Obama, and by his Republican opponent John McCain already, is to throw more military forces at the problem in a replication of the Iraq 'surge'. A parallel attraction, encouraged by Karzai, is to insist that the international community provide ever more money in the hope that some of the billions will stick. But in a country beset by rapidly increasing pessimism over the ability of the international community finally to bring to an end Afghanistan's 30-year cycle of poverty and violence, what is needed is a large-scale rethinking of what we are doing in Afghanistan, not more violence and more largesse.
The reality, despite the claims of Nato and Western diplomats, is that the war is far from being won. For many, it is becoming clear that it cannot be won, framed in military terms. Nor can it be won in terms of the present political settlement, largely imposed on Afghanistan, which has accepted a re-emergence of war-lordism, cronyism and the general collapse of legitimacy and the rule of law in exchange for the impression of a 'stable' central government, albeit one which holds little sway outside of Kabul. The tensions thus created have encouraged a return to a state of widening conflict.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/20/afghanistan.internationalaidanddevelopment
0
sailwind
Good job Betzee,
Once again you've offered nothing even close to a solution.
More troops??? Nah
More Aid??? Nah
How about this for a solution, get NATO out of the bloody north and take over more of the burden in the south so the central government can continue to consolidate the North and center of the country were the Taliban ain't and then feel empowered enough to exert more control the South?
Why is the U.S and Canada stuck with that role?
0
Betzee
Almost seven years after the Taliban was toppled, I hardly expected anyone to look to me for a solution.
0
sailwind
That would be an understatement, I just wonder if the tone of yor posts will change if Obama becomes President and he's faced with exactly the same Afghanistan that Bush has had to deal with since we ousted the Taliban.......Need I remind you all of allies supported that.
0
SezWho2
sailwind,
I can't speak for Betzee, but it beats me how you draw that conclusion from anything that I have said here.
Here is what I am unhappy about in regard to putting more troops into Afghanistan. Our issue is not with the Taliban. In fighting the Taliban we are incurring an unnecessary conflict.
Our beef is with the so-called al-Qaeda. Our goal should be to work with any government that will criminalize their activities.
0
SezWho2
undecidedbout08,
I don't think it would take much for people who hold opinions different from your own to lose credibility in your eyes.
"Do [I] honestly, truly believe that George Bush has used the office of president to launch his own personal Crusade against Muslims?" (If you'll forgive me, I'll use just the one question mark.) No, I don't. And that has never been the issue. The issue is whether Muslims or some particular subset of Muslims are capable of believing so.
The reason that the one about God's work (no quotation marks) never seems to die is that it happens to be true. If you will look it up I think you will find that Bush is on record as saying that democracy is God's gift to humanity and elsewhere as saying that he (Bush, not God) is bringing it to Afghanistan. Additionally, I don't know about a PLO spokesman offering up the exact phrase "God's work", but I do seem to believe (responding to your belief) that our friends in Britain were embarrassed to hear him make utterances that led them to believe that he believed so.
Nobody has suggested that all Afghanis--or even a majority of Afghanis--believe America to be conducting a crusade. The suggestion was that the presence of Turkish troops was a great boon to the international force precisely because it discourages reasonable people from believing it to be. What I find to be sad is that the word "crusade" so reactivates you that you cannot understand the clear meaning of what was said. If there are white American Christians who are willing to entertain the notion that this is a crusade, you can be fairly sure that at least one or two Afghani Muslims may believe so, especially the innocent ones on which we continue to make mistakes.
0
Betzee
Indeed. The Taliban enjoyed little popular support while they were in power. Their resurgence is based on offering a livelihood to Afghani subsistence farmers who were initially reluctant to grow poppies (which had been prohibited under Taliban rule). "It's OK," they were reassured, "cause it will be sold to infidels."
There are two ways to break the back of the Taliban. One is to end addiction in user countries. Not very likely. The other is to provide Afghani farmers with an alternative livelihood. This is not something which can be accomplished either through military means or throwing good money after bad.
0
adaydream
I would be estatic if they would start drawing troops out of Iraq and putting them in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was the war against terrorist. Iraq was the war of choice and giving the oil reserves to US oil interest. (It worked at first, until the Iraqis voted themselves a parliment and they took back control of their oil refields.)
The war in Afghanistan was to punish them for their blatant attack and killing of US citizens.
The attack of Iraq was to enrich the pockets of the dick cheney's buddies and george bush. But mainly dick cheney.
Halliburton got their no bid contract in Iraq and we just left Afghanistan to flounder.
I'm hoping that these meetings reenforce Barack's stance on bringing troops in Iraq home and upping the troops in Afghanistan.
This whole trip id scaring the hell out of republicans. What if he comes home to accolades. Damn, that means trouble for John McCain. < :-)
0
SuperLib
Extra troops won't be brought in to handle the government corruption issues, mostly the fact that the borders and other areas aren't secure enough. You're taking a solution to one problem and saying it won't help a completely unrelated problem, which is a bit odd in my opinion. It would be like saying tacking government corruption won't solve the lack of troops on the border so why take steps to solve the corruption?
0
SuperLib
People should take the same approach to your endless criticism.
Back to top